My reading is that Israel won’t agree. Control of the non-proliferation regime itself would be quite simple, that’s not a problem. The problem is different. If the regime is maintained it is still a regime that is extremist theocracy and calls for the annihilation of Israel,.. 1/4 - ThreadSky

matejrisko.bsky.social • 10 days ago

My reading is that Israel won’t agree.

Control of the non-proliferation regime itself would be quite simple, that’s not a problem. The problem is different. If the regime is maintained it is still a regime that is extremist theocracy and calls for the annihilation of Israel,..
1/4

Reposted from Mary Shine

Trump team proposes Iran talks this week on nuclear deal, ceasefire

-🇺🇸 WH discussing with 🇮🇷 Iran possibility of a meeting this week between US envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, according to 4 sources briefed on the issue

www.axios.com/2025/06/17/t...

Nested🧵👇

Comments

matejrisko.bsky.social•10 days ago

…even if that is perhaps just obligatory rhetoric. For Israel, given its lack of strategic depth and history and, it is a potential existential threat. Survival of the Iranian regime means it will become stronger over time (to prevent another such situation).
2/4

matejrisko.bsky.social•10 days ago

And if Iran with modernised modern military, decides to withdraw from the NPT and build a bomb it won't be that easy to destroy it-its conventional deterrence will be much more credible. Therefore, Israel is demanding regime change and is unlikely to agree to the nuclear deal.
3/4

matejrisko.bsky.social•10 days ago

It is by the way a textbook example of offensive neorealism.
To be clear- the US probably can force/coerce Israel to accept the deal. No one else, but Trump is very weak (speaking about foreign policy) so….

Rigorously (ICD203), there’s 55-80% chance of US joining the war (likely/probable)

FIN
4/4

lukasmengelkamp.bsky.social•10 days ago

Also again underlines how vulnerable states with latency or a very early nuclear capability are.

matejrisko.bsky.social•10 days ago

Yes and no.

States rely on conventional deterrence because of this vulnerability to bridge the time to build the bomb. Kennedy considered attacking PRC,but was deterred by the prospect of retaliation against US allies.Clinton considered striking DPRK,but it would unleash a war on the peninsula
1/2

matejrisko.bsky.social•10 days ago

Iran's problem is that it has lost its conventional deterrent-Syria is free and the axis of resistance through which it projected its power does not exist anymore. Without modern AD assets and airpower,your rudimentary LRS capability won't help (at this distance)

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09636412.2018.1508635

antinomie.bsky.social•10 days ago

I think the important point is to recognize that security while developing and building nuclear weapons is very context dependent and not to think about this in black and white. But nuclear weapon program is often not a magic bullet, esp. for states in acute security crisis.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply